> "Mark" == Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Mark> I would prefer it go on savannah, which is more clearly unaffiliated
Mark> with any particular commercial entity.
Ok, I submitted a request there.
Tom
Tom Tromey wrote:
> I am leaning toward putting it into the rhug repository on
> sourceware.org, simply because then we (the gcj hackers) won't have to
> go through some long project registration process. Speak up if you
> have a particular problem with this.
Thanks!
I would prefer it go on sav
> "Mark" == Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Mark> The FSF and GCC SC have decided to move fastjar to savannah, and
Mark> stop including it in future GCC releases, which will clarify
Mark> this situation. Will someone please volunteer to migrate
Mark> fastjar out of our repository?
Mark Mitchell wrote:
My guess is that it's OK to include the Sun code, since it's in the
public domain.
This may just be nit-picking, but the above notice doesn't put the code
into the public domain. Sun still owns the copyright of the software.
Actually notices at the start of files have ve
> Joe Buck writes:
Ben> Please specify exactly what you want, and who at the FSF I talk to.
Joe> If you have messages giving past discussions of the issue, all the better.
If you have a message from the FSF approving the current
situation, it would be extremely helpful if you either
Ross Ridge wrote:
> Richard Guenther wrote:
>> /*
>> *
>> * Copyright (C) 1993 by Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights reserved.
>> *
>> * Developed at SunPro, a Sun Microsystems, Inc. business.
>> * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distrib
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 05:09:17PM -0600, Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
>
> > As previously stated, if there is contrary information from FSF lawyers,
> > then please gather it and present it to the FSF.
>
> Please specify exactly what you want, and who at the FSF I talk to.
I am not Mark, but I sugges
Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
>> As previously stated, if there is contrary information from FSF lawyers,
>> then please gather it and present it to the FSF.
>
> Please specify exactly what you want, and who at the FSF I talk to.
I don't want anything in particular. I can assure you that my idea of a
g
Richard Guenther wrote:
> /*
> *
> * Copyright (C) 1993 by Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights reserved.
> *
> * Developed at SunPro, a Sun Microsystems, Inc. business.
> * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this
> * software is
> As previously stated, if there is contrary information from FSF lawyers,
> then please gather it and present it to the FSF.
Please specify exactly what you want, and who at the FSF I talk to.
Please do so on-list.
-benjamin
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 03:05:17PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
> >>> The STL files in libstdc++-v3 need to be clearly marked as not part of
> >>> GCC. Benjamin, will you please take care of that, by modifying the
> >>> libstdc++-v3/README to indicate that the files origina
Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
The STL files in libstdc++-v3 need to be clearly marked as not part of
GCC. Benjamin, will you please take care of that, by modifying the
libstdc++-v3/README to indicate that the files originally from HP are
not part of GCC, and spe
Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
>>> The STL files in libstdc++-v3 need to be clearly marked as not part of
>>> GCC. Benjamin, will you please take care of that, by modifying the
>>> libstdc++-v3/README to indicate that the files originally from HP are
>>> not part of GCC, and specifically list those files?
> > The STL files in libstdc++-v3 need to be clearly marked as not part of
> > GCC. Benjamin, will you please take care of that, by modifying the
> > libstdc++-v3/README to indicate that the files originally from HP are
> > not part of GCC, and specifically list those files?
Huh? What are you
Richard Guenther wrote:
> I'll try my best. And I take it as granted that I can turn to RMS in the case
> we only get the usual reactions like
> http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-07/msg8.html
Yes, I think RMS would like FSF maintainers to behave civilly. He did
explicitly indicate in
Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Richard Guenther wrote:
|
| > Remembering the patches from Joseph these were from a different part
| > of GLIBC than I imported. I imported parts of sysdeps/ieee754/flt-32 and
| > dbl-64 which contain C implementations of C99 math intrinsics such as
|
On 17 Mar 2006 23:27:35 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> |
> | > I am confused. My interest in libgcc-math is that it helps solve
> | > thorny issues with libstdc++-v3 and my expectation is that we can ma
Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
|
| > I am confused. My interest in libgcc-math is that it helps solve
| > thorny issues with libstdc++-v3 and my expectation is that we can make
| > modification to libgcc-math so that we can't advantage of it. Now, I
| > unde
On 3/17/06, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mar 17, 2006, at 2:07 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> > So, I think you should remove the dbl-64 code until this is
> > resolved, or at least prevent it
> > from being compiled by removing whatever Makefile bits compile it
>
> :-( At the outside, I
On 3/17/06, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> > Remembering the patches from Joseph these were from a different part
> > of GLIBC than I imported. I imported parts of sysdeps/ieee754/flt-32 and
> > dbl-64 which contain C implementations of C99 math intrinsics s
On Mar 17, 2006, at 2:07 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
So, I think you should remove the dbl-64 code until this is
resolved, or at least prevent it
from being compiled by removing whatever Makefile bits compile it
:-( At the outside, I'd say that in 7 days it should not be in
mainline nor any r
Richard Guenther wrote:
> Remembering the patches from Joseph these were from a different part
> of GLIBC than I imported. I imported parts of sysdeps/ieee754/flt-32 and
> dbl-64 which contain C implementations of C99 math intrinsics such as
> sin and cos. The flt-32 parts are public domain as i
Joe Buck wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 01:23:36PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>> Richard Guenther wrote:
>>> Do I understand this correctly that the upstream GLIBC versions of the
>>> files will get their license changed, or will this happen only in the GCC
>>> copy?
>> Only in the GCC copy.
>
Richard Guenther wrote:
> I understand it in the way that we should modify the imported parts
> upstream (or not), while we can for sure add glues and wrappers or
> other thinks to libgcc-math.
Yes, you can add glue/wrappers.
> So this discussion only affects flt-32
> and dbl-64 directories. I
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> I am confused. My interest in libgcc-math is that it helps solve
> thorny issues with libstdc++-v3 and my expectation is that we can make
> modification to libgcc-math so that we can't advantage of it. Now, I
> understand that we cannot make modification to libgcc-math
On 17 Mar 2006 22:44:37 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> | >> Because RMS has approved the use of GLIBC's software floating-point code
> | >> in GCC's runtime libraries, using GPL + exception, the correct thing for
> | >> J
Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| >> Because RMS has approved the use of GLIBC's software floating-point code
| >> in GCC's runtime libraries, using GPL + exception, the correct thing for
| >> Joseph Myers to do with his recent patch is to mark those files as not
| >> part of GCC,
On 3/17/06, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Richard Guenther wrote:
> > On 3/17/06, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Because RMS has approved the use of GLIBC's software floating-point code
> >> in GCC's runtime libraries, using GPL + exception, the correct thing for
> >> Jo
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 01:23:36PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Richard Guenther wrote:
> > Do I understand this correctly that the upstream GLIBC versions of the
> > files will get their license changed, or will this happen only in the GCC
> > copy?
>
> Only in the GCC copy.
Maybe we should che
Richard Guenther wrote:
> On 3/17/06, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Richard Guenther, would you please add a README to libgcc-math
>> explaining that it that the GLIBC code is not part of GCC, as per the
>> web page above? Also, please document that all of the GLIBC files are
>
> I
On 3/17/06, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Richard Guenther, would you please add a README to libgcc-math
> explaining that it that the GLIBC code is not part of GCC, as per the
> web page above? Also, please document that all of the GLIBC files are
I will do so.
> not to be changed,
31 matches
Mail list logo
